Senate race in Pennsylvania

[cmotherofpirl]

Senate Campaign Tests Democrats' Abortion Tack
By ROBIN TONER
LANCASTER, Pa., April 20 — As the Democratic Party tries to inch its way toward a new, less polarized politics of abortion, seeking some common ground between supporters and opponents of abortion rights, there is no better case study than the Pennsylvania Senate race.

Many supporters of abortion rights — sometimes grudgingly, sometimes led more by their minds than by their hearts — are lining up behind Bob Casey Jr., a Democratic contender for the Senate who opposes abortion rights. The invitation to a recent Casey event in Philadelphia, raising money for his campaign to unseat Senator Rick Santorum, a Republican, perhaps captured the mood. "Pragmatic Progressive Women for Casey," it declared.

The nine Democratic women in the Senate, including some of the strongest advocates of abortion rights, recently signed a letter of support that struck a similar note, describing Mr. Casey's election as "critical to our efforts of regaining the majority in the U.S. Senate."

Mr. Casey himself is emphasizing that while there is "tremendous disagreement" on abortion, there is also a broad consensus of which he is a part: to reduce the number of abortions by reducing the number of unintended pregnancies, through greater access to contraception and family planning.

Other Democratic leaders have been making similar appeals to this "prevention consensus," including, in an op-ed article this week in The Times Union of Albany, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, a supporter of abortion rights, and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, who describes himself as pro-life.

Critics dismiss these efforts as mere political posturing, an effort to obscure the profound divide on abortion's morality and legality. But since the 2004 election, many Democratic strategists have argued that the party must find a way to signal tolerance to opposing views on this issue, and sensitivity to conflicting values.

Mr. Casey, the state treasurer, an experienced statewide candidate and the son of a popular former governor who also opposed abortion, is a symbol of that "big tent" strategy. National party leaders recruited him for this Senate campaign, despite his position on abortion, because they believed he was the strongest potential challenger to Mr. Santorum. With that, they established a high-stakes test: can the Democratic Party, nationally and in the state, rally its abortion-rights base for a candidate who disagrees?

This tension between principle and pragmatism is apparent across the landscape of the Democratic Party this year, weighing on issues that include the war in Iraq and same-sex marriage. Party strategists are trying to piece together enough winning races to take control of the House and Senate, which means paying close attention to swing voters in the middle. But that strategy angers some on the party's left, most vocally in the blogosphere, who argue that the times demand more than a careful centrism.

Mr. Casey, all agree, has been helped immensely by the deep animosity among Democrats and abortion-rights supporters toward Mr. Santorum, the third-ranking Republican in the Senate leadership and a staunch social conservative. Mr. Santorum has been a consistent leader in the anti-abortion cause in the Senate.

"We couldn't think any more highly of him," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee.

Senator Barbara Boxer, the California Democrat who for many years has squared off against Mr. Santorum on abortion, said she had been "making the case" for Mr. Casey "all over the country," arguing that his support for birth control, emergency contraception and international family planning programs made him a "huge improvement" over Mr. Santorum. She also reminds her audiences, she said, that Mr. Casey's election would help deliver control of the Senate to the Democrats.

"It's a pragmatic choice," she said. "And by the way, to dislodge Santorum is a pro-choice victory."

Similarly, Mrs. Clinton played host to a fund-raising reception for Mr. Casey in Chicago last week, and contributed money to his campaign early on. (For all those efforts, Mr. Santorum still has a 2-to-1 cash advantage over Mr. Casey.)

Not everyone is on board; there is still anger and resistance to the Casey candidacy among some Democrats, which bubbled over in a Democratic primary debate here on Wednesday night.

Alan Sandals, a pension lawyer challenging Mr. Casey for the Democratic nomination in the May 16 primary, has argued that abortion rights are under siege and that the party must not waver in its defense. Mr. Sandals was recently endorsed by the National Organization for Women.

Chuck Pennacchio, another candidate in the primary, has assailed the party's national establishment for anointing Mr. Casey in defiance of what Mr. Pennacchio asserts Pennsylvania Democrats really want.

Both candidates sharply criticized Mr. Casey on Wednesday for his endorsement of the Supreme Court nominations of John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr. "Be brave, Bob," Mr. Sandals admonished.

On the campaign trail, Mr. Casey is in many ways a traditional Democrat of the economic populist school, talking about the plight of average families worried about their jobs, their health insurance and their energy costs. He accuses Mr. Santorum of blindly rubber-stamping Bush administration policies to the detriment of Pennsylvania, "voting for tax cuts for multimillionaires, even in a time of war." He strikes a classic theme for an uneasy time, declaring, "I say we need a new direction."

His spokesman says abortion rarely came up, other than from reporters, although he drew fire on the issue from his primary opponents in two recent debates. In an interview, Mr. Casey highlighted his commitment to reducing unintended pregnancies, which he asserted stood in stark contrast to Mr. Santorum. "And then there's a whole series of related questions of how do you help a mother and child before and after birth, and his record is terrible on that," Mr. Casey asserted.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Santorum said the senator had voted consistently for spending bills that included family planning programs, and that "as a matter of public policy, Senator Santorum does not oppose birth control."

John Brabender, a media consultant advising the Santorum campaign, argued that Mr. Casey was putting himself into a box on the issue, and risked alienating both conservative Democrats and Republican suburbanites who supported abortion rights. "This desire to be all things to all people puts him in the category of both sides saying, 'Well, he's not what I thought he was.' "

So far, neither of Mr. Casey's Democratic rivals has broken into double digits in recent polls on the primary. And in a recent survey by Quinnipiac University, pollsters concluded that Mr. Casey's stand was not — at least so far — having a major effect in either the Democratic primary or the general election.

That survey showed that Mr. Casey retained an 11-percentage-point lead over Mr. Santorum, 48 percent to 37 percent. Two-thirds of the voters said they did not know where Mr. Casey stood on abortion. But only 15 percent of voters, most of them anti-abortion, said they would vote against a candidate on the basis of that issue alone. That poll was conducted March 28 through April 3, based on interviews with 1,354 voters, and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Even for some of the staunchest advocates of abortion rights, pragmatism seems to be carrying the day. After two major defeats in Supreme Court nomination battles, a new wave of restrictive state laws in South Dakota and elsewhere, and a sense that Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision declaring a constitutional right to abortion, could be hanging on the next vacancy, many say they simply cannot afford to do anything that jeopardizes Democrats' chances of retaking the Senate.

Kate Michelman, the former president of Naral Pro-Choice America, said she had seriously considered an independent candidacy for the Senate, outraged over Mr. Casey's support for the Alito nomination. But she decided against it, she said, because she did not want to contribute to the re-election of Mr. Santorum. When she discussed her rationale for not running at a recent speech before a gathering of Planned Parenthood supporters in central Pennsylvania, they burst into applause.

Some Democrats note that their party has always had some opponents of abortion rights in their ranks. Mr. Casey's father, the former governor, famously feuded with his national party over the abortion issue in the early 1990's. And over the years, both Congressional parties have polarized on the issue; when the Senate voted in 2003 on a resolution expressing support for Roe v. Wade, only 5 of the 48 Democrats voted against it, and two of them are now gone. Only nine Republicans voted for it.

Against that overriding political reality, what message would Mr. Casey send if he is successful this November? Paul Begala, a longtime Democratic strategist and friend of the Casey family, said Mr. Casey's rise would signal that opposition to abortion rights was not like opposition to civil rights.

"Can you be a good Democrat and be pro-life? Yes," Mr. Begala said.

But some abortion rights leaders beg to differ. Kim Gandy, president of NOW, said: "It's not 'like' civil rights. It is civil rights." Ms. Gandy added that she believed the recruitment of Mr. Casey was a poor strategy, but added, "What concerns me is if they win in spite of their bad strategy, they'll get the idea that it was a good strategy they should replicate."

[Aloysius]

Santorum is still way more pro-life than Casey

this shall be my first election to vote in, and I'm going Santorum all the way.

Casey makes me nervous though... if he can get these snivveling pro-deathers to support him reluctantly and then convince pro-life democrats to vote for him too... my pal Santorum might not be able to pull it off

and then, of course, all my dreams for Santorum 2008 are dashed on the rocky shore...

[MichaelFilo]

I hate to say it.. but.. just because he's a democrat, doesn't make him evil. If he negs on the abortion issue, I see him as a valid candidate, and if he wins, it may be a signal to the democrat party that it maybe in their favor to try pro-life politicians around the country. This maybe the start of a good thing.

God bless,
Mikey

[zwergel88]

Bob Casey Jr. is my personal hero. Once his campaign gets up and running I will be his number one volunteer.

He is very much pro-life and will do more to end abortion than Santorum ever could. His influence will encourage more Dems to become pro-life and once the pro-life movement crosses party lines once and for all it will be unstoppable. Don't forget how in S. Dakota, both dems and reps were for the ban on abortion and the dem governor signed.

don't underestimate the power of the pro-life democrats. Don't vote for Santorum who may be against abortion but supports killing people through war, poverty, and exploitation. Vote for the only candidate who is completely pro-life; Bob Casey Jr.

Vote Bob Casey Jr. 2006!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Aloysius]

you mean the candidate who wants to end the evil of abortion by increasing the evils of contraception and family planning?

and it is absolutely absurd to accuse Santorum of killing people through poverty and exploitation just because he supports smart economic policies...

anyway, I agree with Santorum on just about everything, but with Casey only on abortion. I hate how people insinuate that if both candidates are against abortion then automatically it's the democrat who should be supported.

voting for Casey 2006 is a vote to oust Santorum, who is one of the most 100% no-compromising pro-life senators in the entire country. Casey is as pro-life as Bush on the abortion issue... Santorum is more pro-life than both.

[Kristen]

Casey strongly supports Title X funding--major $$$ to Planned Parenthood. He has also said he will support any opposition the Democrats in the Senate organize to block pro-life Supreme Court nominees.

His father was a true pro-lifer. As Casey Jr. rises to power I predict he will slowly but surely come to support abortion.

[zwergel88]

[quote name='Kristen' post='964239' date='Apr 28 2006, 11:46 AM']
Casey strongly supports Title X funding--major $$$ to Planned Parenthood. He has also said he will support any opposition the Democrats in the Senate organize to block pro-life Supreme Court nominees.

His father was a true pro-lifer. As Casey Jr. rises to power I predict he will slowly but surely come to support abortion.
[/quote]


Senate dems don't block justices because they are pro-life, they block them because they are corrupt and ridiculous. I would have blocked alot of them too.

As for not agreeing with Bob Casey, on anything besides abortion, I would advise you to take a look at his platform. He has a great plan to reduce poverty and work for social justice in the United States and around the world. He has a great economic policy too that includes raising the minimum wage and protecting senior citizens. check it out at www.bobcaseyforpa.org

Also, Bob Casey Jr. is an all around nice guy. He taught school in inner city Philadelphia and coached basketball as part of the Jesuit volunteer Corp. He is the recipient of numerous awards earned because he has worked to protect Pennsylvanians financially, and done great things as far as social programs especially with child care for workind parents.

Santorum is not a nice guy. He is a big fan of the K street lobbyists and allowing them to right legistlation. He called the K Street project in which lobbyists were hired to work in congressional offices "good government" Also, his economic policy smells of elderberries. He was all for private accounts as part of a plan to attain social security solvency. He said that there was no way that we could raise taxes to fix social security. When I met him, I asked him how we would pay for the transition to private accounts and he said that we would raise taxes. This also suggests that he's not exactly playing with a full deck.

Do Pennsylvania and the country a favor and vote for Bob Casey Jr. I would do this myself but the election takes place 11 days before my 18th birthday; this is one of the greatest tragedies of my life.

Interesting fact: you may have heard the story about how the dems didn't allow Bob Casey Sr. to speak at the 1992 dem convention because he was pro-life. This story is untrue and was created by Reps to try to make it seem like the dems aren't a big tent. Bob Casey Sr. was not allowed to speak at the 1992 dem convention because he did not support the democratic candidate for president. Usually they only let supporters of the nominee speak. Its just common sense.

BOB CASEY JR. FOR SENATE 2006!!!!!!!

Edited April 29, 2006 by zwergel88

[cmotherofpirl]

I am supporting the pro-life Catholic candidate Santorum, even thou I am a Democrat.

[OLAM Dad]

[quote name='zwergel88' post='964774' date='Apr 28 2006, 10:33 PM']
check it out at www.bobcaseyforpa.org
[/quote]

zwergel88,

I took you up on your offer to check out this site. I can't find a single word about his opposition to abortion or on what he proposes to do about it. I also don't see anything regarding other life issues; stem cell research, euthanasia, etc.

Santorum, on the other hand has this on this list of issues.

[quote]Rick believes strong families are the foundation of society, and he has worked to strengthen families through legislation and other policy initiatives.

Ban on Partial Birth Abortion
In 2003, Rick championed legislation to ban the gruesome procedure known as partial birth abortion. The Partial-Birth Abortion (PBA) Ban Act of 2003 passed both Houses of Congress and was signed into law by President Bush on November 5, 2003. This historic legislation banning partial-birth abortion was approved three times during the Clinton administration, but the bill hit several obstacles, including a veto by President Clinton.

Partial birth abortion involves the partial delivery of a live boy or girl and a sudden, violent end of that life. Rick believes strongly in the evidence supporting this legislation that this procedure is never necessary to protect the life or health of the mother. Further, the practice is widely regarded within the medical profession as unnecessary, not only cruel to the child, but harmful to the mother, and a violation of medical ethics. Rick believes that banning this gruesome procedure is simply reaffirming a basic standard of humanity.

When the President signed this bill into law, Rick Santorum remarked: "Today, we have reached a significant milestone as we continue to build a more compassionate society and a culture that values every human life. Our efforts to be more compassionate through education, partnership and most importantly faith have helped lead our society to recognize the value of life and the importance of protecting infants at their most vulnerable stages."

Furthering Stem Cell Research
Rick Santorum supports stem cell research, when it does not involve the destruction of human embryos or that is based on the prior destruction of human life. He believes the government should encourage life-saving research, but should focus on science that both works and is ethical.

Rick is a strong supporter of cord blood stem cell research, which serves as an ethical and viable means to treat patients and cure disease. In addition to umbilical cord blood, other adult stem cell research has shown tremendous promise in helping to cure people. These alternative cell therapies are already being used to treat cartilage defects in children, systemic lupus, and spinal cord injuries, and are helping to restore vision to patients who were legally blind.

Unborn Victims of Violence Act
Rick has also been an ardent supporter of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. This bill, known as "Laci and Conner's Law," makes it a federal crime to harm an unborn child during an assault on a pregnant woman. This law allows federal prosecutors, for the first time in history, to seek justice for the unborn victim. Rick believes that this law reflects what most Americans believe; that when a pregnant woman and her unborn child are attacked, there are two victims. When a perpetrator kills both mother and unborn child, he or she will be tried for two crimes.

Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002
Rick led the fight to pass the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002, which ensures that once a baby is completely born, independent of the mother, he or she deserves the full protection and dignity afforded to all citizens. This bill states that federal laws and regulations referring to a "person," "human being," "child," and "individual" should include every infant who is born alive regardless of their stage of development. Rick believes that this legislation is a solid affirmation of human life, affording infants who are born alive nothing less than legal personhood, regardless of their stage of development.

Children and Families
Rick has worked closely with organizations, such as the Children's Home of Easton, to provide federal funding for programs that combat juvenile delinquency and help youth and adults transition out of Children's Home and back into society. The Children's Home of Easton is a great example of a faith and community-based organization, and Rick Santorum has helped to secure over $2.5 million for their programs.

Rick Santorum has been a vocal advocate about the importance of family, and has championed the priorities of the National Fatherhood Initiative in Congress. Rick believes that healthy, stable families are essential to overcoming poverty and ending the cycle of welfare dependency. To that end, he has been a strong supporter of the National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI), which works to improve the well-being of children by increasing the number of children growing up with involved, responsible, and committed fathers.

A leader on the issue of traditional marriage, Rick supports a constitutional amendment protecting marriage as that of a union between a man and woman. Activist judges in some areas of the United States have taken this matter into their own hands, and Rick believes that a constitutional amendment is necessary to preserve this important foundation of our society.

Rick Santorum, and his fellow Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, honored Mr. Fred Rogers, host of the public television show "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood" with a resolution from the U.S. Senate upon his passing at age 74. They paid tribute to the many contributions that Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood had given our country and tremendous compassion he demonstrated throughout his career. From 1968 to 2000, Rogers produced the show "Mister Rogers Neighborhood" at Pittsburgh public television station WQED.

Rick introduced the Working Families Act of 2005, which would expand Individual Development Accounts (IDA) for low-income families. IDAs provide low-income, working Americans the opportunity to build assets through matched savings accounts. Savings can then be used for the purchase of a home, to develop small businesses, or to pursue a post-secondary education. The bill, which Rick introduced with Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, expands IDAs by creating 900,000 additional Individual Development Accounts for low-income families.[/quote]

I respect your right to support whomever you choose but if you're supporting a Democrat, any Democrat, you're supporting the Democratic platform and by extension you're supporting abortion for all.

[cmotherofpirl]

This is a hard one for many people OLAM Dad because in PA we did have a great tradition of being pro-lfe and Democrats at the same time. This is precisely WHY Bob Casey was put up to this. People desperately want to unseat Ricky in the Senate, as part of the bigger picture. He is a great potential presidential candidate and they know it.

To vote for Casey is to support the Democratic pro-abortion party.
A vote for Santorum is a vote for Catholic morality to have a champion in the Senate, and a future prolife President.

Thats an easy choice for me.

[zwergel88]

[quote name='OLAM Dad' post='964857' date='Apr 29 2006, 05:22 AM']
zwergel88,

I took you up on your offer to check out this site. I can't find a single word about his opposition to abortion or on what he proposes to do about it. I also don't see anything regarding other life issues; stem cell research, euthanasia, etc.

Santorum, on the other hand has this on this list of issues.
I respect your right to support whomever you choose but if you're supporting a Democrat, any Democrat, you're supporting the Democratic platform and by extension you're supporting abortion for all.
[/quote]

Its true that info about Caseys policy on abortion is not on his website, I think because he knows that there will be no question of abortion in this race since both candidates are pro-life. Therefore he just decided to focus on economics and stuff. Also, I have a feeling that Casey may not want to wear his pro-life view on his sleeve before he wins the primary elections. That is common sense and does not make him any less pro-life. To all of you who said that a vote for Santorum is a vote for Catholic morality. don't forget that Casey is Catholic too and pretty devout at that.

Both candidates are pro-life when it come to abortion. Santorum is pro-death when it comes to everything else. vote pro-life. Vote for Bob Casey Jr-the coolest guy around.

Edited April 29, 2006 by zwergel88

[cmotherofpirl]

The only pro-death people are abortionists and their supporters.
Ricky Santorum is pro-life, in a party that supports pro-life.
Democrats cannot say the same.
To vote for a democrat is voting for the pro-death party, and all their supporters, including planned parenthood.

[zwergel88]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='965312' date='Apr 29 2006, 12:33 PM']
The only pro-death people are abortionists and their supporters.
Ricky Santorum is pro-life, in a party that supports pro-life.
Democrats cannot say the same.
To vote for a democrat is voting for the pro-death party, and all their supporters, including planned parenthood.
[/quote]

Again I find many errors in your comments. There are unfortunately a lot more ways to kill someone than through abortion. War, capital punishment, and poverty are just a few examples. You say that Rick Santorum is pro-life, I disagree with you, but I accept that he does in fact oppose abortion, however, it is a grave fallacy to say that the Republican party is pro-life, because there are numerous Republicans who support abortion as well as other threats to life. Senator Susan Collins, Rudy Gulliani, Arnold Scharwtzeneger, and Senator Arlin Spector are just a few.

I am very offended by you comment that voting for the Democratic party is voting for the pro-death party. Many democrats, including myself, have worked long and hard to end abortion, as well as all threats to life. Too, hard to have that effort degraded by the many people on the right who do nothing but polarize the country even further.

[cmotherofpirl]

I AM a democrat as well.

[zwergel88]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='965333' date='Apr 29 2006, 01:13 PM']
I AM a democrat as well.
[/quote]


Well then I guess we have something in common. Maybe we should just get through the primaries before we start argueing too much. I think I can safely assume you'll vote for Casey in the primaries. Chuck Pennachio and Alan Sandals are not pro-life by anyone's standards and it would smell of elderberries if they won.